User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-09-15 at 12:20 PM UTC
-
2018-09-15 at 12:35 PM UTCgood morning lalaboo
-
2018-09-15 at 12:49 PM UTCHi Poletitty
-
2018-09-15 at 1:15 PM UTCnumerous studies have reported that approximately one-third of homeless persons have a serious mental illness. according to the substance abuse and mental health services administration it's approximately 20 to 25%. that number is much higher if you count undiagnosed persons. many suffer from schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder,and major depression just to name a few.
more than 40 percent of america's homeless population are people with disabilities and the number is rising.
people with poor mental health are more susceptible to the three main factors that can lead to homelessness: poverty, disaffiliation, and personal vulnerability. the stress of experiencing homelessness exacerbates previous mental illness and encourage anxiety, fear, depression, sleeplessness, substance use, and death.
It is our moral responsibility to help those that cannot help themselves.
yet people including people like you walk by them every day judging them,not my problem, or they think if they give to charities for the poor and so on it'll fix the problem. It's much deeper than that.
these are human beings not animals dying in the streets every day.
when this ends you can lecture me about my moral responsibility to stop animal suffering. -
2018-09-15 at 1:30 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-09-15 at 9:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by playingindirt numerous studies have reported that approximately one-third of homeless persons have a serious mental illness. according to the substance abuse and mental health services administration it's approximately 20 to 25%. that number is much higher if you count undiagnosed persons. many suffer from schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder,and major depression just to name a few.
more than 40 percent of america's homeless population are people with disabilities and the number is rising.
people with poor mental health are more susceptible to the three main factors that can lead to homelessness: poverty, disaffiliation, and personal vulnerability. the stress of experiencing homelessness exacerbates previous mental illness and encourage anxiety, fear, depression, sleeplessness, substance use, and death.
It is our moral responsibility to help those that cannot help themselves.
yet people including people like you walk by them every day judging them,not my problem, or they think if they give to charities for the poor and so on it'll fix the problem. It's much deeper than that.
these are human beings not animals dying in the streets every day.
when this ends you can lecture me about my moral responsibility to stop animal suffering.
The fact that there are (arguably) greater evils in the world is not a justification of lesser ones. Some people murder their children. That doesn't mean it's OK for me to seriously injure mine until the last infanticide is stopped.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-15 at 9:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by playingindirt numerous studies have reported that approximately one-third of homeless persons have a serious mental illness. according to the substance abuse and mental health services administration it's approximately 20 to 25%. that number is much higher if you count undiagnosed persons. many suffer from schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder,and major depression just to name a few.
more than 40 percent of america's homeless population are people with disabilities and the number is rising.
people with poor mental health are more susceptible to the three main factors that can lead to homelessness: poverty, disaffiliation, and personal vulnerability. the stress of experiencing homelessness exacerbates previous mental illness and encourage anxiety, fear, depression, sleeplessness, substance use, and death.
It is our moral responsibility to help those that cannot help themselves.
yet people including people like you walk by them every day judging them,not my problem, or they think if they give to charities for the poor and so on it'll fix the problem. It's much deeper than that.
these are human beings not animals dying in the streets every day.
when this ends you can lecture me about my moral responsibility to stop animal suffering.
Would you feel differently for these homeless if they weren't mentally ill? like they're just able bodied but lazy or otherwise can't come to grips with modern life.? I feel like the emphasis on illness is to show their problems are not due to the choices they made but the bad hand they were dealt. To ameliorate agency. they don't deserve this. If that's the case than how is it different from eating animals who do suffer and are even more deprived of choices or options than a person?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-16 at 12:37 AM UTCthe lesser of two evils? having been deprived of choice?
vegans and vegetarians eat plants so I got this information from national geographic (facts based on evidence) not some hippy tree hugger site
there is such a thing as plant intelligence.
plants are capable of solving problems and learning from past experiences.
we tend to judge plants not as autonomous organisms but in terms of what they can do for us. plants are astonishing in their own right and deserve to be given the same ethical status as animals, says richard mabey.
plants don't have a central nervous system like humans and animals but scientists have found evidence that plants really can feel when we're touching them.
science is now revealing that plants are very aware and even have ways of communicating. plants can have sex at long distances and communicate with approximately 20 more senses than an animal has.
and there is video of how some plants respond to being attacked.
video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/180913-mutant-plant-fluorescent-attacked-science-vin -
2018-09-16 at 12:50 AM UTCWHO???? Is Anyone to judge.
This argument could proceed a million lifetimes.
My only guess might be to see someone who couldn't see clearly. -
2018-09-16 at 1:02 AM UTCj/k morality makes no sense to me I just wanted to bump the meat thread.
s-sorry. -
2018-09-16 at 1:44 AM UTCMorality has to make a LITTLE sense, right? At least the concept.
-
2018-09-16 at 1:45 AM UTCUncertain if morality exists.
I'm leaning towards no. -
2018-09-16 at 12:15 PM UTC
-
2018-09-16 at 1:11 PM UTCFuck ya'll weird ass niggas, man.
I eat meat. Burgers, dogs, steaks, stir FRY PEPPER STEAK, all kinds of shit.
Although, I do move to turkey when I can rather than beef, but I still eat the fuck out of it. I can't imagine a life without my MEAT. MEET. I NEED MEET.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-16 at 3:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny
The fact that there are (arguably) greater evils in the world is not a justification of lesser ones. Some people murder their children. That doesn't mean it's OK for me to seriously injure mine until the last infanticide is stopped.
why not ?
shouldnt eradication of evil begin with the worst kind of evil first ? -
2018-09-16 at 4:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by playingindirt there is such a thing as plant intelligence.
This is a very contentious claim. Firstly "intelligence" is not a term with a uniform definition. Many you'll find are vacuous and apply so broadly as to include clearly emotionally and experientially inert objects. One of my favorite definitions hinges on having "knowledge" which seems to substitute the problem of assigning a good definition to the word "intelligence" to the much larger project of defining knowledge. Then the evidence for all but the most trivial forms of intelligence in plants is a lot weaker that you've made it out to be.
But most importantly intelligence has never been the rubric by which I've assigned moral considerably to lower animals but not plants, nor do I think it is for anyone ITT except perhaps captain falcon. It's the hedonic faculty of lower animals that appears lacking in plants.
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Stupid analogy is stupid
Wrong. If the analogy fails demonstrate how. If not then suck my dick.
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny why not ?
shouldnt eradication of evil begin with the worst kind of evil first ?
It's reasonable to prioritize projects which we can expect to do greater good or to eliminate more suffering on a practical level, but that doesn't change the moral status of an act. If you have to choose between greater and lesser evils then of course it's right to choose the lesser (this is why I don't condemn people in the third world for raising livestock if that's really the only way they can sustain themselves) but this shouldn't be the present situation for anyone in this thread.
It's perfectly reasonable to attempt to remediate issues like human malnutrition and our exploitation of lower animals at the same time. In fact it's quite possible to do both at the same time as it requires fewer natural resources to sustain yourself without meat and it's usually less expensive in developed countries, so you can commit the money you've saved with your plant based diet to feeding those less fortunate that yourself.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-16 at 4:58 PM UTCWhat about fish and insects?
-
2018-09-16 at 5:06 PM UTCfincest
-
2018-09-16 at 5:18 PM UTCMorality does not dictate human development.
It is greed. -
2018-09-16 at 5:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA256
This is a very contentious claim. Firstly "intelligence" is not a term with a uniform definition. Many you'll find are vacuous and apply so broadly as to include clearly emotionally and experientially inert objects. One of my favorite definitions hinges on having "knowledge" which seems to substitute the problem of assigning a good definition to the word "intelligence" to the much l
none who knew anything about knowledge and intelligence will ever confuse the two together.It's reasonable to prioritize projects which we can expect to do greater good or to eliminate more suffering on a practical level, but that doesn't change the moral status of an act.
it doesnt ?
shouldnt be the lesser evil be less immoral than the bigger evil and hence more tolerable ?
what are your pov on morality, is it a something thats digital, that its a yes or no thing, or is it an analog one.
tolerance is after all, the embrace of the lesser evil and the lesser immorals.
